the project is its most novel aspect, as it is intended to periodically (typically every five years) assemble a study panel to reassess the state of AI and its impact on society. A “framing memo” (https:// ai100.stanford.edu/reflections-and- framing) laid out Horvitz’s aspirations for the project, along with the reasons for situating it at Stanford University.

First Step

Assemble a study panel. As the AI100 project was launched in December 2014, the standing committee anticipated that several years would be available for shaping the project, engaging people with expertise across the social sciences and humanities, as well as AI, identifying a focal topic, and recruiting a study panel. Within a few months, however, it was clear that AI was entering daily life and garnering intense public interest at a rate that did not allow such a leisurely pace. The standing committee thus defined a compressed schedule and recruited Peter Stone of The University of Texas at Austin (co-author of this article) as the chair of the report’s study panel. Together they assembled a 17-member study panel comprising experts in AI from academia, corporate laboratories, and industry, and AI-savvy scholars in law, political science, policy, and economics. Although their goal was a panel diverse in specialty and expertise, geographic region, gender, and career stages, the shortened time frame led it to be less geographically and field diverse than ideal, a point noted by several report readers. In recognition of these shortcomings, and as it considers the design of future studies, the steering committee, which has increased its membership to include more representation from the social sciences and humanities, has developed a more inclusive planning and reporting process.

Design the charge. The standing
committee considered various possible
themes and scopes for the inaugural
AI100 report, ranging from a general
survey of the status of research and ap-
plications in subfields to an in-depth
examination of a particular technology
(such as machine learning and natural
language processing) or an application
area (such as healthcare and transpor-
tation). Its final choice of topical focus
reflects a desire to ground the report’s
assessments in a context that would
bring to the fore societal settings and a
broad array of technological develop-
ments. The focus on AI and Life in 2030
arose from recognition of the central
role cities have played throughout most
of human history, as well as a venue in
which many AI technologies are likely
to come together in the lives of individu-
als and communities. The further focus
on North American cities followed from
recognition that within the short time
frame allowed by the panel’s work, it was
not possible to adequately consider the
great variability of urban settings and
cultures around the world. Although the
standing committee expects the projec-
tions, assessments, and proactive guid-
ance stemming from the study to have
broader global relevance, it intends for
future studies to have greater interna-
tional involvement and scope.

The charge the standing committee communicated to the study panel asked it to identify possible advances in AI over 15 years and their potential influences on daily life in urban settings (with a focus on North American cities), to specify scientific, engineering, and policy and legal efforts to realize these developments, consider actions to shape outcomes for societal good, and deliberate on the design, ethical, and policy challenges the developments raise. It further stipulated that the study panel ground its examination of AI technologies in a context that highlights inter-dependencies and interactions among AI subfields and these technologies and their potential influences on a variety of activities.

Create the first report. In the absence
of precedent and with a short time hori-
zon for its work, the study panel engaged
in a sequence of virtually convened
brainstorming sessions in which it suc-
cessively refined the topics to consider
in the report, with the aim of identifying
domains, or economic sectors, in which
AI seemed most likely to have impact
within urban settings between publica-
tion of the report and 2030. Then, dur-
ing a full-day intensive writing session
during an in-person meeting at the 2016
AAAI conference in February, they draft-
ed several report sections. They then
iteratively revised these drafts with the
goal of producing a report that would
be accessible to the general public and
convey the study panel’s key messages.
At a final in-person meeting in July at the
the media and is much further from re-
alization. It anticipates that AI-enabled
systems have great potential to improve
people’s daily lives worldwide and posi-
tive impact on economies worldwide
but also create profound societal and
ethical challenges. It thus argues that
deliberations involving the broadest
possible spectrum of expertise about
AI technologies and the design, ethical,
and policy challenges they raise should
begin now to ensure the benefits of AI
are broadly shared, as well as that sys-
tems are safe, reliable, and trustworthy.

In the rest of this article, we provide background on AI100 and the framing of its first report, then discuss some of its findings. Along the way, we address several questions posed to us during the years since the report first appeared and catalog some of its uses.

Influences and Origins

The impetus for the AI100 study came from the many positive responses to a 2008–2009 Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures that was commissioned by then-AAAI President Eric Horvitz (Microsoft Research) and co-chaired by him and Bart Selman (Cornell University). Intending a largely field-internal reflection on the state of AI, Horvitz charged the panel with exploring “the potential long-term societal influences of AI advances.” In particular, he asked them to consider AI successes and the societal opportunities and challenges they raised; the socioeconomic, ethical, and legal issues raised by AI technologies; proactive steps those in the field could take to enhance long-term societal outcomes; and the kinds of policies and guidelines needed for autonomous systems. The findings of the panel ( http://www.aaai.org/Organi-zation/ presidential-panel.php) and reactions to it led Horvitz to design AI100, a long-horizon study of how AI advances influence people and society. It is intended to pursue periodic studies of developments, trends, futures, and potential disruptions associated with developments in machine intelligence and formulate assessments, recommendations, and guidance on proactive efforts. The new project was to be balanced in its inward (within the AI field) and outward-looking (other disciplines and society at large) faces. The long-term nature of